Arthur Firstenberg: The Jackass In the Foil Hat
June 17th, 2008
|
| Share |
Not long ago this site reported on a group which demanded “radiation free zones” in New Mexico and restrictions on Wifi, cell phones, public safety communications and all other RF devices. There have also been some reports of similar groups in California. Many of these groups seem to be embracing the fake condition “electrosensitivity,” which was invented in Sweeden in the early 1990’s. However, an article recently brought to my attention something that I had not noticed: There has apparently been one individual who has been a driving force in the organization of citizens groups in the Western United States for the purpose of whining and complaining about electromagnetic and RF fields.
The douchebag in question is one Arthur Fistenberg. Apparently he was a one-time med school student who claims he was forced to drop out in 1982, after developing a sensitivity to electromagnetic fields that prevented him from being around modern medical equipment. He blames the development of this condition on routine dental x-rays, which somehow managed to turn him from a garden variety ass into some kind of mutant super drama queen with no shame at all.
Since 1997 he’s taken up the issue of “electrosensitivity,” first authoring “Microwaving Our Planet,” an article in which he made the standard issue claims about every disease known to man being cause by RF radiation, which he says has been covered up by the telecommunications industry since 1927. By 2002, he was organizing his first protests in California, claiming that cellular phone deployment was causing him and others to have horrible health issues. He stated that he moved to California from New York City in an attempt to get away from the radiation which caused his debilitating condition. (Presumably he walked, since aircraft and cars tend to have electrical devices on them)
He has since written several other articles, such as this one:
In 1982 I was in my fourth year of medical school, a promising career ahead of me. Today I am homeless. My money does not provide me shelter. My good health does not ensure my survival. My friends are unable to help me. I am being killed, but the law offers me no protection.
For eight years I have run an advocacy and support network for people in similar circumstances. No one else has been doing this kind of work in North America. I am afraid time has run out for us. I will outline, later, the emergency measures that are needed in order to reverse a grave, imminent and largely unacknowledged threat to all life.
Well he’s not lying about one thing. He apparently is (by all indications) unemployed and lives on Social Security checks, which somehow he managed to get for this “disability.” He claims that this is because he cannot find any place to work which does not have computers, in one posting to the Ecologist. Yes, apparently he’s not only harmed by RF fields from wireless networks, but even the small electromagnetic fields from a computer inside a shielded, grounded case make him break out in laziness… I mean.. health issues.
Despite this, he’s continued to be the driving force in organizing groups against wifi or other sources of “EMF Smog,” such as the recent uproar in New Mexico. Just a search for his name on Google News shows that he has managed to make himself the seed for numerous useless groups claiming that wifi or cell phones is dangerous and needs to be subject to ridiculous restrictions.
Sorry, but I have been unable to find a photo of Mr. Fistenberg. This is probably due to the fact that most cameras are now digital and even those which are not have electronic light sensors and flashes. Thus, he probably can’t get near them.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, inverse square. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 17th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Wow. One person can really make a big stink when they put their mind to it, eh?
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Seriously. One person really can make a difference. I just wish it was a positive one.
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
It is a wonder that he is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as well given his in-depth analysis and research that he has provided backing his claims.
This was covered up by the telecommunication industry since 1927? Seriously!? Why? The average person in 1927 would not have any idea what an electromagnetic field was.
Although, I did know one person that was ‘allergic’ to fluorescent light. Not really allergic, but if he stayed in an area lit by fluorescents for too long, his eyes would get red and puffy, and soon after, the headache would start. He said it was a sensitivity to the flickering or the color, which I can actually believe. (Not a fan of dim yellow lights, makes me look stoned.)
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
These people should be put to the test, and if they can’t reliably demonstrate that they can detect these fields, should be charged with fraud, and creating unnecessary panic
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
CBMTTek said:
That’s not necessarily entirely bull. Fluorescent lights have been shown to strain eyes. They flicker with the AC current (in North America 60Hz). This is not directly preceptable, but it can strain eyes like watching a CRT monitor without other light up close for extended periods can. The flicker has been shown to cause reduced reading rates by reducing visual tracking ability. It also increases visual fatigue.
Newer fluorescent lights are supposed to be better and have capacitors to give them more smooth current to operate on. Fluorescent lighting also produces a “band spectrum” of colors. It can make color look more washed out and less vivid. I don’t know if this would increase eye strain, but it sure doesn’t help with it.
Usually eye strain is the result of being in an area which is relatively brightly illuminated with fluorescent lights and does not have alternate illumination for a long period of time. Old and cheap fluorescent tubes may be worse than decent quality new ones as they take slightly longer to re illuminate on each pulse.
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Exactly a lot of fluorescent lights flicker at 60Hz in time with the power. This is perceptable to some people and the flicker can induce headaches and other physical symptoms. But it can usually be fixed by the simple expediant of wearing a hat or cap with a brim to shade the eyes from directly seeing the light source.
The brain reacts to visual stimulus so it isn’t to surprising that it could react to something like a light flickering at a regular pace.
And dispite knowing that this type of thing is real I also am certain that electrosensativity isn’t. No one has been able to demonstrate such sensativity under controlled conditions.
Quote Comment
June 17th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Flourescent lamps with an electronic ballast operate the lamp at a much higher frequency, something like 20 kHz, to avoid the flicker effect of older magnetic ballasts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_(electrical)
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 1:05 am
It’s too bad when one person tries to do something *POSITIVE* and *CONSTRUCTIVE* everyone tries to drag him down and criticize his ideas, while one ass who whines can get everyone to whine with him. The victim mentality is the most vile thing there is. It’s totally destructive and its suffers have respect for neither themselves, their peers, or society as a whole. All that matters is that they get their 15 minutes of fame and go home telling themselves it’ll all be okay, damn the repercussions to everyone else who can actually function.
Useless SOBs.
*turns off hate-people mode for tonight*
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Sung Li Kim said:
There seem to be certain trends that always get wide sympathy. Any time you claim to be a victim of something which is somehow able to be related to a “big company” or something then it seems the burden of truth falls on the other side and you get sympathy. If you can play the “big government and rich chronies of bush” line you’re golden. Play the oppression thing. Say it’s “not natural” or say there is some man made chemical or radiation or something that is killing you.
Generally it involves playing the little guy, even if you’re not. There’s also a degree of shamelessness to this that helps. Also, bring in kids – nothing gets people to go nuts like kids. “Manmade Radiation from the rich white guys and the big old fat cats at Verizon and Sprint – they just want to make money by irradiating your CHILDREN! OH THE CHILDREN!”
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 2:25 am
O/T but thought you guys might be interested –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/2135432/Italy-switches-back-to-nuclear-as-soaring-fuel-bills-bite.html
(via http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/italy_finally_gets_over_the_greens_chernobyl_scare/)
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Wonder how “electrosensitives” organise their protests. Semaphore?
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 2:47 am
“Wonder how “electrosensitives” organise their protests. Semaphore?”
If you look closer, the guy in the photo appears to be using a mobile phone.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Soylent said:
Hadn’t noticed, but you’re right – perhaps it’s water-powered!
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Fred said:
Haven’t they been warned about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide yet?
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 4:26 am
For a group which is incapable of getting anywhere near anything electrical or that produces any kind of electromagnetic field, they sure do have quite a web presence. I suppose maybe the websites are maintained by those of them who are only sensitive to microwave fields but not to general electromagnetic fields? There seem to be a number of those kind. There also seem to be a number of them who are sensitive to the “towers” but not to the handsets.
The towers seem to get a lot of attention and more so than the handsets or garage door openers, baby monitors and so on.
I suppose it’s all about how extreme you take it. A lot of them seem to claim that they can tolerate electricity, just not RF or microwave stuff. Maybe it would be too much sacrifice to live with no lights etc. Then there are those who say that they can tolerate some EMF, but only if they’re wearing protective clothing.
I guess it comes in all flavors.
Maybe they write about this kind of thing while looking through binoculars at a computer screen and typing with a long rod to touch the keys. Or maybe they have a big horn that they scream into and have a stenographer type it. (Paid for by the state through equal access programs for the disabled, of course)
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Oh, hey, maybe they can manually switch their ES on and off so they can write up their websites and call telecoms and politicians to complain!
That would be a nice feature to have, actually, turning sicknesses on and off. When I just don’t feel like showing up for work today…
Alright, fine, so that’s a bad idea.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Sung Li Kim said:
oh that’s not hard to do. Making yourself sick is easy. You can spend the night drinking cheap vodka or you could stick your finger down your throat or you could eat a bunch of undercooked meat – likely to give you e. coli for a couple days of intersinal misery but rarely fatal. Or you could just stand out in the cold until you get ill. I mean, that won’t get you an infection or anything, but if you stay out long enough you’ll likely make your nose and throat all raw and sore from the harsh cold air.
The question is does your employer offer unlimited sick days? I mean, hell, if you want the day off you can always call in sick and generally get away with it. It’s just an issue of how often you plan on doing it. If you plan on doing it for a number of days you might need something more than your word. If you do it too often they may get irritated, especially if you do it mostly on nice days when there’s other stuff to do.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Hmmm….. now that I think about it, you could make a lot of products for the “electrosensitive” and maybe sell them to the Sweedish government for people with the disability, since they actually consider it legit.
I remember a long while ago hearing about a scheme called “optical television” which was hatched in the early part of the 20th century. It was an idea to allow for visual broadcasts without the need for the complex electronics of the time that were in televisions. Basically it involved building a tower in the center of a town with a big screen on it to play movies and all the homes would have a sort of parascope with mirrors and optical ducts to zoom in on the image and reflect it onto a viewing screen. No… it never got past the initial concept. But that gives me some ideas…
You could have an internet terminal for the electrosensative where there is a screen which is a display from a digital projector located some distance away and under piles and piles of sheilding and projecting onto it through all kinds of optics. Then for input perhaps a keyboard that didn’t have any electronics in it but instead was like the keys on an old church organ – each key would instead have a pneumatic valve and typing would work by opening the valves down a series of tubes of pressurized air to a receiver… again some distance away and under sheilding.
Then a parascope to a webcam somewhere. A “speaking tube” like on old ships with a microphone some distance away (obviously it would have to be pretty sensitive to hear down a long length of tube and have a lot of advanced echo-cancellation.
Yes… all the controls and stuff could be mechanical, hydrolic, pneumatic and so on… you could have all kinds of appliances like this. You could make a fully functional home except everything would really be very distant from electricity. The switches would be pneumatic valves that trip a distant relay and the lighting would be funneled through miles of optical ducts and fiberoptics, from a safe distance. The mechanical devices like fans and vacuums would be either pneumatic perhaps powered by a spinning cable in a sheath, like a bicycle speedometer..
Ok… I better not give anyone any ideas.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 7:03 am
I’m shocked that anyone could be so callous toward the less fortunate in our society. What about the mechanical vibrations produced by all those sheathed spinning axles? That sort of regular physical vibration doesn’t occur in nature, you know. People haven’t evolved to cope with it. And I suppose you’re just going to ignore the concerns of the pneumatically sensitive!
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I’d like to congratulate you that your posting is the first thing that comes up when one googles “Arthur Firstenberg foil hat” and the third one that comes up when one googles “Arthur Firstenberg jackass”–apparently others have already beat you to this characterization of him.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
DV82XL said:
I have a modest proposal.
After being put to the test, the treatment of those who fail should be identical to those (if any) who pass.
Both groups should be banned from using or being near any electonic or electrical equipment for the rest of their lives.
This would be a mercy to the genuine sufferers and a scourge of punishment to the fakers.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Finrod said:
Can’t we just send them all to somewhere like a remote Pacific atoll or a compound somewhere in northern Greenland or somewhere else away from electricity and where they won’t bother anyone?
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
First a technical correction:
Flourescent lights with a non-electronic ballast flicker at 120 Hz, not 60 Hz as the light-power output changes with the square of the voltage sine wave. Many people though are affected by flickering light output as the “flicker limit frequency is different for different people. Has nothing to do with electrosensitivity though. The “flicker limit frequency” where flicker can be perceived is a function of brightness also. The brighter, the higher that frequency limit. That’s why European TVs were dimmer than US TVs in the TV tube days, as they ran on a 50Hz half-frame rate instead of 60 Hz. Not applicable to LCD/plasma of course.
The Pacific Atoll idea does not work as these people would then be bombarded there by more intense high frequency electromagnetic radiation in the 300-700 nm wavelength range. Greenland would cause more low frequency load by magnetic storms (northern lights). Those can be strong enough to overwhelm cell-phone fields or stronger. There’s no getting away for these people. But they are probably not sensitive to those fields as they are “natural”. Maybe somebody should sell them a cell-phones with “natural/organic” radiation. All it takes is a label.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
KLA said:
That’s not the point. The point is to send them off somewhere where they won’t irritate me.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
someone mentioned digital cameras. Check this out – the RFI from a digital still camera flummoxed the digital controls for a boiler feedpump at Indian Point plant in NY, leading to a pump trip and ultimately tripping the reactor. So, maybe Mr Foil Hat isn’t so off-base as you guys think…
the LER is available in NRC’s ADAMS system (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html)
The accession number is: ML081490318 (cut & paste this number into the search field on their site to see the report).
Check it out
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Why waste an atoll on an a…nevermind.
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
gman said:
Radio Frequency Interference effects other electronic equipment that’s why it’s called ‘Interference.’ This is well known, however you cannot extrapolate this to saying low-level RF fields interfere with biological processes.
Quote Comment
June 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
DV82XL said:
Yes you can. But only if you are scientifically illiterate and do believe supermarket tabloid headlines.
Like the best one I’ve read ever:
“New computer virus found to infect humans too”.
Probably the next craze.
Quote Comment
June 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
KLA said:
Oh God help us, you’re probably right
Quote Comment
June 20th, 2008 at 3:19 am
NO! Don’t give them ideas, PLEASE!
OTOH computer security companies and health care providers can team up for epic profit.
Quote Comment
June 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Another example I’ve just read on a German forum. There a green anti-nuke ecotard stated the following:
“The cores of nuclear reactors breen inadvertantly new Transuranics. These are starting to be noticable because of increased gravitation. Not only because of their incredible weight, but because they will overtake the gravitation of the earth and turn it into a black hole.”
I’m waiting for other ecotards to comment that they did not know, that but that it’s bolstering their arguments.
It seems the uncontrollable chain reaction that greenpeace et al are creating panic off has started. Not of neutrons, but an uncontrollable, self-reinforcing increase in stupidity.
Quote Comment
June 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 am
KLA said:
Sounds like a bit of confusion or conflation with the black hole/strangelet fears expressed by some with regard to CERN.
Quote Comment
June 23rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Finrod said:
Epic trim weights for aircraft!
And imagine what you can take out with one shot with a bullet made out of THAT stuff!
You know, assuming it’s as dense as they say it is.
Quote Comment
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Sung Li Kim said:
Ya, but lifting the round is a problem.
Quote Comment
June 24th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
DV82XL said:
Just turn it into “nanoparticles” because those things are magic. Apparently when a “nanoparticle” is made out of super-heavy material, this in no way changes the rate it would settle from the atmosphere. Instead, they remain aloft forever, wafting around the world. The only time they fall from suspension is when they encounter the lungs of an innocent civilian or a kitten or anything cute like that.
That’s because they are MAGIC!
Quote Comment
June 24th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
On the topic of electrosensitivity, I understand that scientifically it can be really very difficult to prove or disprove something like an association of long term exposure to a condition like cancer, because everyone does not get it and it can take years to show up, plus even if you find it the statistical problems with it are many because you could have another cause that is coincidental.
What I don’t understand is this business of electrosensitivity, because how can you hide behind the “not enough research” thing? If it happens so dramatically that it’s like “I go near a tower and my head is pounding and my vision goes blury and my skin itches like crazy” which is what some people claim, then you don’t need to look at it long term, right? I mean, a placebo controlled study of the immediate effects on individuals who claim it should be able to nail that right away, it seems to me.
Is this perhaps another case of making the scientific issue here more complicated than it really needs to be?
It seems to me that if you could just put people in a room next to a wifi router and turn it on and off randomly and have them say if they get a headache would be able to prove this, if it did exist. Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but I think sometimes that these kind want to avoid cutting to the chase and dealing with things on that level, because it’s hard to obscure the truth with something like that.
Quote Comment
June 24th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Dave G said:
Absolutely. Good science tries to clarify and make things easier to understand. This is the opposite. Yes, you should be able to prove something as acute as what is being claimed very easily without any of the difficulties which are found in long term studies of the chronic issues associated with a variable.
In general also I think most scientists would agree that when you do an experiment you try to make it as direct and simple as possible while maintaining the controls you need. Extra unnecessary stuff is going to only add more area for errors or confusion. You want to make observations as direct and binary (yes/no) as possible and take out the human factor.
With something like this, you should try to make the initial question simple. It should simply be “Do we observe any statistically significant difference in those exposed to the RF fields in question versus those who are exposed to a placebo?”
That cuts to the chase. It’s a yes or no question. There’s no wiggle room. Once you answer it you can then start examining it closer and looking into the theory and mechanism. Don’t do that up front though! That only clouds the important issue.
So yes, this is a clear example of “Obfuscation.”
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2008 at 3:21 am
A radiation free zone?
…
So they’re going to encase the entire area in a lead dome and stumble around in the dark? Sounds like a plan.
Quote Comment
October 11th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
It;s all “string theory” you savant.
Quote Comment
October 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Hail to A. Firstenberg – and a whole lot of other people – for telling the truth about ARTIFICIAL EM waves. This blog does not attack the science! It doesn’t even MENTION the science. If you want to attack the science, go to http://www.microwavenews.com and try to attack that. You all are a bunch of bubbleheads. If you’re so certain that electromagnetic waves don’t have biological effects I want you to sleep with your cell-destruction phones under your pillows – every night. No exception, now. No excuses. Every night, forever, and that’s in the ON position. Guys, make sure to keep it in your pants pocket during the day. Women, in your left shirt pocket. Always, and always on. In fact, tell your kids to do the same. No effects, right? (My God, the radiation companies themselves don’t even say there are no effects….)
Quote Comment
October 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
planet revolves around sun said:
You imbecile, how dare you arrogate yourself the right to invoke the name of science when it is clearly apparent you haven’t the slightest idea what the word means? You really are nothing but a pile of damp human garbage that stays alive only by the sufferance of real humans – the ones who think. You can’t do a damned thing for yourself and depend totally on the intellectual efforts of others that keep you fed, sheltered, clothed and entertained. Even your job that you think earns you a living, is busy-work to keep you out of trouble – a bone for you to worry, flung at you by your betters.
Please crawl back into whatever paranoiac fantasy world you came out of – the grownups are talking here.
Quote Comment
October 17th, 2008 at 5:07 am
planet revolves around sun said:
Oh I’ve attacked the science here on several occasions on various levels of detail: The studies done on the subject, including some of the largest controlled studies in the history epidemiology. There have been posts talking about dialectirc heating, eddy currents, the inverse square law, absorption rates etc etc. Also, we get some very intelligent people in here from time to time who are professionals in wireless communications or health physicists and others who have contributed to or otherwise backed up the information.
quote comment=”11633″]
If you’re so certain that electromagnetic waves don’t have biological effects I want you to sleep with your cell-destruction phones under your pillows – every night.
Well, they can have biological effects at extreme levels. Current science continues to back up what we have known ever since the first experiments with UHF all the way back in the 1920’s: If it’s really powerful and very close then it can injur with burns or subsurface thermal damage. It behaves exactly like infrared except is a bit more penitrating. This is exactly how it would be expected to behave because it is not capable of chemical interactions and there is no hard dividing line with IR and microwaves.
By the way: I sleep with my phone about a foot away from my head. EVERY NIGHT. Yes, it is in the on position. I leave it on the nighttable to charge and incase I get a call in the morning or something.
I don’t put it under my pillow because it could slip out and fall on the ground or it might be uncomfortable. Every night I sleep with it very close to my head and turned on. I have no concerns at all.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
It is really a shame and a disrespect for other beings that there are so many of you that blasted Arthur for sensitivities that are no fault of his. To be so ignorant to the fact that we are all so unique that we may have allergies/sensitivites that differ from others is quite sad. Just because the sensitivity may be rare in your world, doesn’t mean that is does not exist! Believe me, I know Arthur and lived with him for many years, so I know that what he is experiencing is not “in his head.” Was it frustrating? Yes, very much so. Especially when I tried to accomodate him because of his illness and I am ashamed to say that there were times that I was angry because of his sensitivities. Who are we to judge how he feels? We do not know what goes on in his body. Just because you can not outwardly see something physical happening, doesn’t mean that it is not taking place in his body…REMEMBER THIS! There have been times that flourescent lights have bothered me and the gases that they emit have made me feel ill, so I can understand that. Also, I have walked into certain places(stores, old churches, moldy areas) and I have felt so weak and sick that I have had to walk out. What I am getting at here, is that we all have different sensitivities, so again I will say, don’t be so quick to judge because you never know when something may hit you out of the blue, and you just might regret what you said about Arthur. I hope one day that you may be able to understand or see for yourself what he is talking about. I use a cell phone. Do I really like it? No Does my ear feel weird sometimes after a lengthy time on the phone? Yes – but like an idiot, I use it anyway …for the convenience while being ignorant to the health issues at stake. Maybe all of you who are condemning Arthur should read a bit more about the environment that we live in and the technology that we have out there…hazardous or not? As for what Arthur looks like…he is a beautiful, non-violent person who has a lot to give. Why do you need to see a picture of him. You’ve already judged the book without seeing the cover! Haven’t you got anything better to do? I hope that I’ve left you with alot to think about. Arthur sure has given me and everyone he meets a lifetime of things to thing about….just look at everyone here that is writing about him, go put all of these negative remarks to good use by not being so judgemental. Learn and share. We all deserve a certain amount of compassion…and I did not detect that at all in most of these letters. Do not be jealous of people that collect SS/disability benefits. Be happy that you could live and work freely unlike so many others who are restricted because of their disabilities. I also want to thank the people that left positive and supportive comments about Arthur and others who are stricken with sensitivities. I am sure that they would appreciate your thoughtful and practical responses. I hope that everyone reading this comes away with a bit more empathy for others in these situation. Believe me, it will make you feel more whole as a person. I know, I’ve been there.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Susan O. said:
All of you self-diagnosed ’sensitives’ do have a problem – between your ears. You are nothing more than hypochondriacs with overactive imaginations, and attention whores. Your constant mewling for sympathy makes me want to puke. The bald arrogance of demanding that the rest of us should be discommoded to satisfy your petty whims is breathtaking to say the least.
Prove this condition exists as anything but a psychosomatic illness, in any properly designed and executed double-blind test, and I will be the first one to say I was wrong. Short of that you can all go to Hell.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Susan O. said:
Allergies are real. I am allergic to pollen and to cat dander. Allergies are based on the body reacting to a stimuli as if it were an invader and it triggers an immune response that can include inflammation, swelling etc. It is entirely testable and can be documented to exist.
Electrosensitivity is entirely fictitious. It never manifests any kind of measurable symptoms that are anything that can’t be explained by psychosymatics. Yes, there have been double-blind studies and this has been investigated. This is actually not surprising because it supports the decades of research on RF fields and how they interact with living organisms. There has never been a credible mechanism seen that would cause anything to happen other then some very slight warming of tissue, which I may add, is within the normal variations of body temperature anyway.
Now lets talk about “accommodation.” Normally self-proclaimed electrosensatives claim to be sensitive to microwaves, RF fields and that kind of thing. It’s interesting how selective they are about it. It’s mostly the newer, more conspicuous items that get them all hot and bothered: Wifi, cell phones and alike. In reality these sources are tiny compared to some things that have been around for a long time. High power UHF radios have been put on police cars since the 1950’s, microwave television transmitters go back just as far, radar guns have been around for decades and so have microwave relay telephones.
Actually, you can’t get away from microwave radiation. Our bodies emit it. Yes, that’s right/ Black body incandescence means that anything that is not cooled to near absolute zero will emit a variety of electromagnetic waves. We emit waves which range from the low-infrared to the high microwave region. The sun produces huge amounts of microwaves.
But does this bother them? No, just the obvious, more visible and conspicuous sources like modern technical items.
There’s another important factor to consider: The inverse square law. It does not jive with these claims. The inverse square law governs how radio power density is distributed. Basically what it boils down to is this: Close up sources have the highest density even if they are not very powerful. The power density drops dramatically as you move away for the first few feet or so and then as you move away it becomes less and less of a drop per a given unit of distance.
As a consequence of this, if something like a wifi router did bother you, you’d just have to step back a short distance to experience a very dramatic reduction in radiation. However, the difference between standing 40 feet from it and 50 feet is negligible.
So if a person with self-proclaimed ES is being interviewed on TV complaining that they can’t go within a quarter mile of a cell phone tower, then something does not jive here. The reason? The power density from the RF-leakage from the TV camera’s oscillators is much stronger at a few feet than a cell signal is at a few hundred yards.
Yes, it seems counter-intuitive at first, but the fact is, if people actually were sensitive to RF fields then a person who is sensitive to a cell tower at a few hundred meters would probably be killed by a cell phone at two meters. That’s how it works. Distance is critical, especially with low power localized sources.
Yet these ES guys claim that they need to be a mile away from a cell tower yet don’t seem to mind being closer to comparatively smaller items. It is totally inconsistent with the way things work.
Susan O. said:
Unfortunately, the placebo effect is surprisingly strong and people can be influenced strongly by what they believe. I don’t want to diagnose the man with whatever mental issues he has, but it is likely he believes the pains are real, or possibly he partially believes it or has some kind of sub-conscious thing going on.
When it comes to human factors that can’t be measured directly, there is a way to screen out subjective interpretation. It is known as the double-blind, placebo-controlled test. It is done with a number of subjects who don’t know if a stimuli is real or a placebo. It has been done here. The results are one sided and conclusive.
The WHO and some other agencies took this whole thing seriously and did some in depth reviews of the scientific data. The conclusion that it’s all in one’s head is universally agreed on.
Susan O. said:
I’m inclined to think in your case that’s partially or entirely a psychotic based effect, but there is some truth to the statement that flourescent lights can cause headaches. The older ones and some that are on their last legs can flicker at a high frequency. This produces an effect that makes the iris have difficulty adjusting to the light levels and it can lead to headaches.
They don’t emit any gasses.
Susan O. said:
Mold can make people feel sick, but normally it’s not something that happens right away. It is usually more from chronic exposure, except in very extreme circumstances.
Let me just ask: Do you worry about enviornmental health hazards a lot? Do you think often about air quality and worry that your location will make you ill?
I bet you do.
Susan O. said:
If your ear feels weird, it’s likely from being pressed against the speaker.
Susan O. said:
Oh don’t worry about that. I have read many many studies on this, I’ve talked to some real experts in the field of radiation safety, I’ve personally operated equipment and I understand the theory behind it. I even own RF hazard meters.
Some of the visitors to this site and those who I’ve met through online advocacy include people who have been directly involved in meta-analysis of RF safety studies. Also, they were kind enough to email me PDF’s of some of the bigger studies that normally I would have to pay for access to (You know who you are and thanks again.)
So really, I’m not ignorant of this at all.
Susan O. said:
You’ll notice that I have a short temper for those who push around bad science and have an agenda that they consider more important than the facts. Maybe the man has never punched anyone in the face, but his antics have caused even more aggravation and pain to the communities that have to deal with him.
Susan O. said:
I don’t mind when people with disabilities collect benefits, if they are real disabilities. I don’t like people cheating the system with their invented conditions. No I’m not jealous, I think it’s pathetic. I don’t envy that at all. If I really wanted to be a deadbeat I could just pretend too. I don’t have any desire for that.
Susan O. said:
You have my comments. While I think this kind of thing is basically just self-centered drama-queen whining, I will give this much sympathy: I do believe it’s possible that Arthur and people like him do have a legitimate mental illness and if they do then they need to get help. However, I think deep down they don’t really want it and like the attention and victim status they get.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Susan, I’m not a mental health professional and so honestly I don’t know where one draws the line between someone just being full of themselves and despirate for attention but I know that ES is a lot of bull because of all the reasons on this page and the scientific facts. The inverse square law is one thing that basically disproves these claims and also the studies done.
I don’t think that a person’s state of mind is an excuse though because I believe that unless a person is so insane that they can’t understand reality then they have the responsibility to be honest and get them self help. It sounds like he prefers to have this condition he says he has than to admit that he has been living a lie. Sometimes when you live a lie long enough it starts to almost seem real.
It sounds like you and he thrive on this. It sounds like his ‘gentleness’ and everything comes from this whole thing with him being a victim and a crusader for people like him. It sounds like the two of you have settled into your roles as being part of this thing.
People like you though, you all really just feed into this belief every time you stand up for it. Think! Think! Just use your brain and look at the facts
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:52 am
Susan O. said:
Lady, you have no idea what you’re talking about and you have no idea who you’re talking to. The author of this site has displayed a very good understanding of the issues involved here in both the health and science aspects or lack there of in this area. I should know too, because wireless communications has been my profession since before many here were probably born and I am very well versed in the safety issues involved in uhf and microwave systems.
The studies all confirm what we have always known. When I looked at an rf safety guide in the 1970;s and today they’re the same. Nothing we knew then has in any way been shown false and no new hazards have been discovered, and that’s not like there are not plenty of people trying to find them! Radio signals treat the human body like a big bag of water. Most go through without actually transferring much energy to us and any energy they do is pretty minor and just vibrates the water molecules a tiny bit. We don’t have the resonance or tuning to pick up radio signals efficiently.
If I showed you an RF hazard meter you would be astounded at how quickly it drops from any consumer device. I have to almost have the probe in contact with the antenna of a wifi router to get it to read anything. I can move it a few feet away and it shows nothing. If you want to receive at even a small distance it you need an canteen with descent tuning and gain. Even then the signal is in microvolts and it needs to be amplified to be detected. What does that tell you?
The whole electronegative thing is hogwash that nobody ever even heard of before around 2000. It was invented, and it was all the rage in Europe before coming over to North America.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Did a search on “George Carlo” whom the cellular phone industry hired to prove this stuff was safe. Looks like industry didn’t get the answer it wanted and fired him. Since then they have tried to focus the research on the thermal effects of radiation, which they limited his research to when they were forced to give him his job back.
I’m not about to construct my own aluminum foil deflector beanie after reading this, but it does make think twice when the industry yes-man says no, the risks are to serious to ignore.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Carlo is the founder and chairman of an organization called the Science and Public Policy Institute (not to be confused with the conservative think-tank also named the Science and Public Policy Institute) and its sub-project, the Safe Wireless Initiative, which is associated with electrosensitivity.
He is currently working with these affiliated organizations and he also established a Help for Wireless Victims network, whereby people who claim to suffer from “ElectroHyperSensitivity Syndrome (EHS)” and “Membrane Sensitivity Syndrome (MSS)” will have access to health care via a network of quacks. He is also developing an educational arm of SPPI and SWI, called EMR University, to train said quacks and through, the Safe Wireless Initiative is accumulating an enormous database of people who claim to have symptoms and/or illnesses related to or caused directly by EMR exposure.
In other words he saw an opportunity to make a fortune off the gullibility of the stupid and went for it.
How many times do we have to say this: without double-blind testing in a proper cohort study with a significant result forthcoming, this is all dren. All of these proponents of EMF/RF exposure illness could shut me, and every other skeptic up in a split second with good results from a study like this… So why don’t they do it?
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Carlo was part of the “Wireless Technology Research” program, which was not the equivalent of being the “head of research for the industry” or anything like that. It was a 28 million dollar program, over the course of 6 years. In terms of major science initiatives, even private ones, that’s hardly a huge program. It was one of the programs to review scientific data that an industry group funded.
Anyway, he did some very inappropriate things during the program. For example, he made some very strong statements and talked with the media frequently. One thing he said:
“The scientific and medical information is in a gray area. We can’t say clearly that these things are safe. We have a hint that they are dangerous. [But] we don’t know how dangerous. What we do know is that in the four different epidemiologic studies we’ve done, there are hints of health risks.”
That kind of a statement is not appropriate for any researcher to make during the course of any study or project. You don’t blow your mouth off to the media or give sneak peaks or hints at the data. There are sometimes prelim reports, but the study should be published in a journal, in its entirety before you jump the gun on conclusions.
Honestly, I don’t know how the hell he managed to worm his way into that job to begin with. All I can think is he BS’ed his way into it with a padded resume or he had some connections who got him the job. His experience before that was limited to pulling a similar stunt with silicone breast implants. (yeah, we all know how good the science that destroyed Dow Corning and many retirements was. It’s probably the best example of panic over non-existent dangers going wild in recent history).
He’s presented some papers on really fringe stuff. In addition to being part of the whole idea that “information carrying” radio waves are the problem, he started the idea that radio waves cause cells to absorb and fail to excrete ‘toxins’ and ‘heavy metals’ He claims a link to audism. Not surprisingly, he’s forged some connections with the anti-vaccine assclowns.
Quote Comment